000079587 001__ 79587
000079587 005__ 20200716101438.0
000079587 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0216896
000079587 0248_ $$2sideral$$a112217
000079587 037__ $$aART-2019-112217
000079587 041__ $$aeng
000079587 100__ $$aCarrillo, Alba
000079587 245__ $$aQualitative analysis of the best possible self intervention: underlying mechanisms that influence its efficacy
000079587 260__ $$c2019
000079587 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000079587 5203_ $$aBackground The Best Possible Self is a Positive Psychology Intervention which asks participants to write down about themselves in their best possible future. Previous studies have shown its efficacy to enhance wellbeing, but the mechanisms that underlie its efficacy are still unknown. Objective The aim of this study was to analyze the content of the essays of the BPS intervention and to examine how this content was related to the efficacy of the intervention to increase positive affect. Method Participants (N = 78) were randomized to either the Best Possible Self condition, or one of two variants of the intervention: one''s best self in the present, and one''s best self in the past. Qualitative analyses of the texts were carried out to explore the main themes and features of the essays. Then, a mixed-methods approach with quantitative and qualitative data was followed, in order to analyze the relationship between the content of the texts and the change in positive affect produced by the interventions. Results Significant differences between conditions were found in the content of the compositions. Regression analyses showed that different variables predicted the change in positive affect depending on the condition. Mediation analyses also found differences among conditions. Conclusions These findings suggest that these interventions respond to different underlying mechanisms which influence their efficacy. This study contributed to a better understanding of how Positive Psychology Interventions work, and how to increment their efficacy.
000079587 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
000079587 590__ $$a2.74$$b2019
000079587 592__ $$a1.023$$b2019
000079587 591__ $$aMULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES$$b27 / 71 = 0.38$$c2019$$dQ2$$eT2
000079587 593__ $$aMultidisciplinary$$c2019$$dQ1
000079587 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000079587 700__ $$aMartinez-Sanchis, Marian
000079587 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-6266-9602$$aEtchemendy, Ernestina$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000079587 700__ $$aBaños, Rosa M.
000079587 7102_ $$14009$$2680$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Psicología y Sociología$$cÁrea Person.Eval.Trat.Psicoló.
000079587 773__ $$g14, 5 (2019), 0216896 [15 p.]$$pPLoS One$$tPLoS ONE$$x1932-6203
000079587 8564_ $$s594981$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/79587/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000079587 8564_ $$s69695$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/79587/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000079587 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:79587$$particulos$$pdriver
000079587 951__ $$a2020-07-16-08:57:06
000079587 980__ $$aARTICLE